Thursday, June 28, 2012

What will be the end of Monsanto? Could it be lawsuits, new legislation, or perhaps even a tiny insect that is less than 0.10 mm in length. A new report reveals that rootworms may ultimately be what ends Monsanto’s crops, despite the biotech giant’s rampant success within the United States legislative system. Amazingly, western corn rootworms have virtually no problem gobbling up Monsanto’s modified maize crop, as they have developed a serious resistance to the very crops designed to kill them. So much so that these little critters are outpacing Monsanto’s top scientists.

To make matters worse for the company, the resistant rootworms are maturing earlier than expected this year. And with the enhanced growth has come enhanced birth rates, with the bug’s larvae hatching the earliest in decades. Monsanto, of course, is absolutely defenseless against the resistant rootworms which have adapted to their biopesticide known as Bt. At least 8 populations of insects have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. The answer? Use even more intelligence-crushing pesticides.

Rootworms, Nature Overcome Monsanto’s GMO Crops

It is for this reason that the EPA has warned in the past that Monsanto’s crops will soon be ravaged by the insects. In their report on the subject, the EPA states:

“Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is ‘inadequate’”.

The statements have been reinforced by another group of concerned scientists. A body of 22 academic corn experts voiced serious concerns over GMO crop failures back in March, warning that a collapse of the GMO corn industry may soon follow — a particularly mighty prediction when considering that 94 percent of the US supply is currently of the genetically modified variety. It is also important to consider that much of the corn is not used for food, but for biodiesel purposes.

Will nature adapt to Monsanto’s genetically modified creations and lead to their downfall in the end? Time and time again researchers and agricultural professionals have been calling upon Monsanto and the United States government to return to traditional and sustainable farming practices — even citing the fact that Monsanto’s GMOs produce even less yield. Instead, the modified crops have overtaken much of the food supply. Now, in the face of collapse, the only answer provided by Monsanto is to drench crops in even more pesticides and modify their genetic coding to an even greater degree.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system." This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges. Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other "stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:

Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody. - Magda Taylor, Informed Parent

Human trials generally correlate 'antibody' responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. 'Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.' - Private Eye 24/1/2002

Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.- Ted Koren DC

The FDA and Pfizer avoided the issues of health and safety by simply declaring that there weren’t any. As a result, pork meat from vaccine-castrated pigs has never been tested for safety, nor has the health status of those pigs been considered.

Autoimmune diseases are something we all want to avoid, so why has Pfizer created a vaccine whose purpose is to create precisely that?

It seems that the odor of male pig meat is offensive to most people. Therefore, male pigs destined for the dinner plate are castrated. That is, of course, an inhumane procedure, especially as it’s generally done without anesthetics. Nonetheless, the implications of a vaccine whose purpose is to do the same thing need to be addressed. As we’ll see, the FDA and, of course, Pfizer, avoided the issues by simply declaring that there weren’t any. As a result, pork meat from vaccine-castrated pigs has never been tested for safety, nor has the health status of those pigs been considered.

What the Vaccine Does

Called Improvest by Pfizer, the vaccine’s technical name is Gonadotropin Releasing Factor Analog - Diphtheria Toxoid conjugate (GnRF analog-DT conjugate). It is given twice, when the pig is at least 9 weeks of age and again at least 4 weeks later. The first dose, according to Pfizer, “primes the pig’s immune system”(1). The second dose, again according to Pfizer, “creates the effective immune response”, as shown in the graph.

The result is effective castration by creating an immune response against gonadotropin releasing factor analog (GRFA), a hormone that’s required for maturation. It’s also known to be associated with releasing growth hormones. The full range of its effects is not known, but it is known to be produced in neural cells and is found in organs where its function is unknown.

No Testing for Safety in Pigs or Humans

In approving Improvest, the FDA had absolutely no concern for the welfare of the pigs. Whether it caused discomfort or pain was never a consideration. This is bad enough, because it indicates that animal welfare is of absolutely no concern to the FDA. However, the same is also true of human welfare. Here are areas of human health that the FDA opted not to look into, with quotes from the FDA document, “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION SUMMARY – SUPPLEMENTAL NEW ANIMAL DRUG APPLICATION. IMPROVEST”:

Microbial Food Safety: “The Agency has determined that an assessment of the microbial food safety for the use of IMPROVEST in intact boars pursuant to this supplemental approval (extension of the slaughter interval following injection of the second dose of IMPROVEST) was not necessary.”

Impact of Residues on Human Intestinal Flora: “The Agency has determined that an assessment of the impact of IMPROVEST on human intestinal flora pursuant to the conditions of this supplemental approval (extension of the slaughter interval following injection of the second dose of IMPROVEST) was not necessary.”

Toxicology: “CVM did not require toxicology studies for this supplemental approval.” [Note: CVM is the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine".]

Assignment of the Final ADI: “No reassessment of the toxicological ADI or toxicological ASDI was needed for this supplemental approval.”

Safe Concentrations for Total Residues (edible tissues and injection sites): “No reassessment of the safe concentrations for total residues was needed for this supplemental approval.”

Residue Chemistry: “CVM did not require residue chemistry studies for this supplemental approval.”

Clearly, the FDA simply decided that meat from pigs given Improvest is safe to eat without testing whether it is. They showed the same amount of concern for the health and comfort of the pigs: “CVM did not require target animal safety studies for this supplemental approval.”

The only testing was for Improvest’s ability to remove the odor from male pig meat.

This utter lack of concern for potential harmful effects of Improvest comes in the face of knowledge that the total range of effects of the substance that it makes the immune system target, GRFA, is unknown. How can they possibly presume safety in such a circumstance?

Where the Vaccine Is Used

The simple answer to where this new vaccine is used is everywhere. At least 60 countries have approved it, including the European Union, Australia, and Japan. It goes by the name of Improvac outside the United States.

Dishonesty in Selling Improvest

As ever, the public is misled about the effects of a pharmaceutical product. People are rapidly becoming aware that it’s dangerous to play with hormones. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) proved to cause the very conditions it was supposed to prevent. Steroids are known to be dangerous and some are illegal for use as body-building enhancers. So, naturally, this vaccine that acts by turning the body’s immune system against a substance required for releasing hormones is of concern.

The way that Pfizer deals with this concern is through sleight of hand. In “Keeping Pork Delicious”(3), Pfizer asks the misleading question: “Is Improvest a hormone?” The answer to that is, of course, no. Improvest is a vaccine, and the vaccine does not contain a hormone, nor does it cause an autoimmune response against a hormone.

That leaves the reader with a completely misleading impression about how Improvest functions. No, it isn’t a hormone, but it has a dramatic effect on hormones by creating an autoimmune response against GRFA, which is required to release certain hormones.

They also claim that no residue is left in the meat, but interestingly, they don’t cite their own studies. Instead, they state, “There are no residues in the meat from IMPROVEST that could affect human health, according to the FDA.” [Note: Emphasis is Pfizer's.] However, as noted in the list above, there was no testing done to determine if there were residues, microbes, or impacts on intestinal flora in humans. Therefore, we quite literally do not know the truth.

However, Pfizer has freed itself of liability by pointing a finger at the FDA, the agency that is supposed to look out for our welfare in the face of new pharmaceutical products, but quite clearly has completely abdicated any responsibility in the case of Improvest.

Labeling

It would, of course, be helpful to know when we’re buying pork from pigs that are given this vaccine. Of course, that’s a futile wish. No such labeling is done. Therefore, if you hope to protect yourself from any potential harm, you have two choices. You may simply not eat pork, or you must eat only pork that is organic, preferably from sources that you know and trust.

This is simply another example that the food supply has been coopted by multinational corporate interests for the sole purpose of profit. The health effects on humans and the welfare of animals is of no concern, and Agribusiness’s wholly owned agencies, such as the FDA, now work for them—not for us.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Agricultural giant Monsanto is best known for their production of pesticides and genetically modified foods, but they have a controversial history as a chemical company with a slew of toxic cover ups. In addition to their battle against small farmers, the
newest buzz about the corporation is the speculation that their GM seeds are linked to the die off of bees.

Hundreds of reports have appeared in the mainstream media in the past couple of days hyping the danger of a new bioengineered bird flu virus which is transmissible between humans as the Globalists try to condition humanity to accept a new pandemic emergency and a mass vaccination campaign with a toxic pandemic jab.

Yet again, the people of the world are facing the monolithic threat of a mass vaccination campaign with a pandemic vaccine now proven beyond a doubt to cause harm.

Hundreds of reports have appeared in the mainstream media in the past couple of days hyping the danger of a new bioengineered bird flu virus which is transmissible between humans as the Globalists try to condition humanity to accept a new pandemic emergency and a mass vaccination campaign with a toxic pandemic jab.

Yet again, the people of the world are facing the monolithic threat of a mass vaccination campaign with a pandemic vaccine now proven beyond a doubt to cause harm.

Another report of genetically modified creations taking the lives of livestock has hit the media, and this time genetically modified grass has been identified as the culprit according to CBS News. Shockingly (and quite disturbingly), the GM grass actually produced toxic cyanide and sent the cattle into a life-ending fit that included painful bellowing and convulsions. The deaths have led to a federal investigation centered in Central Texas, where the cattle had resided.

Just east of Austin, the cows lived on an 80-acre ranch owned by Jerry Abel. Abel says that the fields were used for over 15 years for cattle grazing and hay, and that the genetically modified grass was ‘tested’ previously and should have been ‘perfect’. The GM grass however, known as Tifton 85, appears have been producing toxic cyanide. Used as a genocidal agent in World War 2 by the Germans and considered to be an extremely dangerous substance internationally, it is extremely concerning that cyanide is now being produced by once harmless grass thanks to the modification process.

The 18 cattle went off to enjoy some ‘fresh’ new genetically modified grass, when Abel says they went into a fit of convulsions and shrieks. He explains:

“When our trainer first heard the bellowing, he thought our pregnant heifer may be having a calf or something,” said Abel. “But when he got down here, virtually all of the steers and heifers were on the ground. Some were already dead, and the others were already in convulsions.”

Within 15 hours of this incident, all of the cattle had died as a result of the grass ‘suddenly’ producing cyanide and therefore throwing them into a lethal fit. According to USDA scientists, it may be the result of a mutation — the same kind of mutation that has been seen in many of Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready crops.

What’s more is the fact that many other farmers are now testing their grounds and also finding the presence of cyanide. While there is not yet a large number of reports concerning cattle deaths from cyanide, it was recently revealed that one large biotech company Syngenta had been covering up further animal deaths from genetically modified corn.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Just as it is in the west, the HPV vaccine is being heavily marketed in India. The heavy pressure to roll it out has resulted in tragic deaths of girls given the vaccines. Now, a report by the British Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has come out with a study demonstrating that the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, cannot be justified in India. More scandalous, though, is that their results clearly reflect that these vaccines are even less justified in the western world, including the USA, UK, Europe, Canada, and Australia. That, though, is never mentioned in their report..

The primary point brought out by the study(1) is that the rate of cervical cancer is not high enough to justify the cost and risks associated with Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines. Further, the authors noted that the rate of cervical cancer in India has dropped dramatically in a little more than 20 years, from 43 cases per 100,000 in 1982-83 down to 22 per 100,000 in 2004-05. This point alone should clarify that the cause of cervical cancer is likely mostly associated with something that’s controllable in the environment. India’s standard of living has risen dramatically in the last 25 years, and that may be the most significant factor in cervical cancer rates.

The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which has close ties with the Bill Gates Foundation(2), is the primary force behind pushing HPV vaccines in India. Of course, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) also actively push them because they manufacture the vaccines.

The British study has harsh words for the conclusions that PATH reached. They quote the PATH document, “Shaping a Strategy to Introduce HPV Vaccines in India, “Results from the HPV Vaccines’ states that ‘in raw numbers, India has the largest burden of cancer of the cervix of any country worldwide.” Then, they state.

This claim is not supported by the references, moreover data from the cancer registries in Gujarat or the Cancer Atlas were not cited.

PATH selected Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat ‘based on cervical cancer disease burden’ and because they were ‘in the middle range for certain variables (e.g., immunization coverage)’. There are no references provided for this statement.

Of the five studies that PATH cites in relation to cervical cancer or HPV epidemiology, one study could not be traced; the HBCR report is not comprehensive and does not provide age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence rates; and the three remaining studies did not examine epidemiology of cancer but reported on HPV prevalence and type distribution. Only one study was conducted in Andhra Pradesh and none in Gujarat. The three studies were conducted in rural populations in the south, and urban populations in the south and north of India.

In other words, the British study found that the claims made by PATH are not supported by any evidence!

The authors concluded:

Neither the epidemiological evidence nor current cancer surveillence systems justify the general rollout of a HPV vaccination programme either in India or in the two states where PATH was conducting its research. HPV vaccination programmes should only proceed where there is both strong epidemiological evidence and where there are adequate surveillance and monitoring systems.

The cervical cancer rate does not justify the costs or risks for the HPV vaccine.

Study Implications for Industrialized Nations

This study about the lack of justification of the HPV vaccine in India has strong implications for its massive rollout in the west. All we need to do is compare the incidence of cervical cancer in India with those of western nations:

India United States of America United Kingdom22 per 100,000 8.0 per 100,000(3) 10.5 per 100,000(4)

Even in terms of cancer rates, these are low. In the UK, the total annual rate of cancer as of 2008 was 466.3/100,000(4). In the US, the rate for 2008 was 517.6/100,000(5). The study did not give an overall cancer rate in India. It did, though, focus on the fact that the mortality rate (not incidence, but actually death rate) of Indian women from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases was 283/100,000, and compared it with the death rate from cervical cancer: 7.7/100,000.

In the US and UK, the cervical cancer rate is less than half that found in India. This study found that giving the HPV vaccine makes no sense in light of both its cost and harmful effects. This doesn’t even consider the fact that no cause-and-effect connection between HPV and cancer has ever been shown, so there is nothing to demonstrate that the very expensive HPV vaccines even accomplish what they claim.

The implication of this study for the industrialized nations is that the HPV vaccines make no sense, even without taking into account the question of whether they actually do prevent cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is a relatively rare disease. It isn’t even in the top ten cancers. Whether we like to accept it or not, the fact is that cost of medical treatment does matter. If we spend too much on one thing, then we won’t have enough to spend on something else. So, we must make rational decisions.

So, the question is: Does it make any sense to promote a vaccine for HPV? Consider these facts:

There is no proof that it prevents cancer.
The cost of the vaccine is extremely high and must be repeated at least three times for initial coverage and again every few years.
The rate of cervical cancer is quite low.
The cure rate of cervical cancer is quite high.
The adverse effects are devastating.
Clearly, it does not. Whether in India or a western nation, there simply is no justification for the HPV vaccines—unless, of course, you’re Merck or GSK.

Video of Study Author Discussing Problems Found in the PATH Claims

Professor Allyson Pollock, one of the paper’s researchers, is interviewed in this video. She states quite clearly that it will take at least 30 years to know if the vaccine works to prevent cancer and specifically states that PATH is hugely irresponsible in pushing the HPV vaccines in India. She clarifies quite clearly why the HPV vaccine makes no sense in India. It’s a shame she didn’t expand her comments to the use of these vaccines in the west [8:55]:

The reports suggest that there is a large risk of a human version of bird flu erupting in the near future, and show how this could be done in a laboratory.
Ron A. M. Fouchier from the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands created a virus strain that could spread through the air among ferrets.

The results of the experiment would suggest that bird flu could potentially mutate to become transmittable between humans like the flu, a scary thought considering the human fatality rate from bird flu when contracted from birds was recorded as 60 percent in 2010.

In the study, however, the ferrets only died when infected directly with a swab — not when they contracted the more mild airborne variety.

The NSABB was so nervous about these experiments that they asked Science not to publish the material back in December, The New Times' Denise Grady reported.
The board was afraid that the study could potentially be used as a roadmap for biochemical terrorists seeking to create a deadly bird flu weapon.

NSABB chair Dr. Paul Keim was so anxious, because he claimed it was the most potentially dangerous pathogen in existence. "I don't think anthrax is scary at all compared to this," Keim told Science Insider back in November 2011.

The board withdrew its request for censorship in March, but only after a similar board by the World Health Organization decided the information should be made public.

We’ve all seen the “BPA-free” labels affixed prominently to new plastic products. And many of us have fallen for the ruse, purchasing these new water bottles and food storage containers thinking we can still enjoy the convenience of plastics without the hormone-altering BPA. But what manufacturers are using in place of BPA might not be any safer. It’s known as ‘BPS‘ and as a matter of fact, it could be even worse.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) has made headlines over the past several years for the growing awareness of its dangers. Namely, it mimics estrogen in the body, throwing hormones out of whack. Although the United States and Europe have banned BPA in baby bottles, Canada remains the only country that has officially declared BPA as a “toxic substance.” Because of this, many people have smartly begun shunning plastics, opting for glass or metal, or choosing the new slick and expensive drinking bottles labeled “BPA-free”.

In place of BPA, manufacturers have begun using something called bisphenol-S (BPS). Unfortunately, there is no indication that BPS is any safer. On the contrary, it could be even worse than the villainized BPA. So, why are manufacturers using it? Well, because they can!

There is little information available on BPS at this point. Scientific research is lacking, and because there is little to say that it’s bad for you, manufacturers don’t have to worry (yet) about the repercussions of putting it in their products and selling it to unknowing consumers.

According to the Environmental Science and Technology, BPS is actually of a “comparable potency” to BPA. Also, it is “less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and photo-resistant” than its predecessor BPA. What does this mean? Well, it has the same estrogen-mimicking qualities and it doesn’t degrade as quickly as BPA, so it can stick around in your body for longer periods of time.

This isn’t a new practice—skirting public fears by playing on their ignorance. Plastic manufacturers know that the information about BPS is still in an infancy stage. They know they can get a few good years off of this “BPA-free” label craze before science catches up with them. So, in the meantime, they will keep selling you their new supposedly-safer products and probably even sell them at a higher price!

The bottom line is that we don’t know everything that is now being included in plastics. They are likely an “alphabet soup of toxic chemicals,” according to Mercola. Even canned goods are lined with BPA. Your best bet is to stick with glass whenever possible for food storage, drinking water, and microwaving (if you still do that).

Did you know that mobile phones comes with warnings in the small print? Did you know that you’re not supposed to put it in your pocket? Did you know that mobile phone manufacturers cannot get insurance for health damage from mobile phones? Their radiation damages DNA, disrupts the blood-brain barrier, damages sperm, and changes brain metabolism. The same kind of radiation is used medically to increase drug uptake into the brain because of its ability to weaken the blood-brain barrier.

What makes mobile phones so dangerous is not their power. The signals are weak, but claims that weakness makes them harmless are spurious. The problem is that the signals vary constantly, and that variance disrupts DNA repair. The signals vary in a variety of ways:

Frequency
Amplitude
Pulse
Intensity
Polarity
Information content

Though not known for certain, it’s suspected that the information content is most significant because of its virtually random variability.

Dr. Devra Davis states that we are now in the middle of a massive uncontrolled experiment with 5.5 billion mobile phones. The guinea pigs, of course, are us. She says that the implications on our health are grave. Worse, the radiation goes far deeper into the brains of children, putting them at even greater risk.

None of this information is secret. The mobile phone industry is, of course, fully aware. Yet, they are now selling them for applications on babies. They’re even used as teaching tools, with instructions to place them under the head of a sleeping child.

Information on how to protect yourself is below the videos. First is a brief video of a woman whose breast cancer was a direct result of storing her mobile phone in her bra [2:48]:

Note that a man’s penis is also at great risk from exposure, as so many mobile phones are stashed in pockets.

Means of Protecting Yourself from EMR

Mobile phones have become a part of our lives. Should we just give them up? More realistically, will we? The answer to that is fairly obvious. These devices have become a part of our culture, so giving them up is not going to happen. However, we can minimize the risk, and with reasonable—and simple—safeguards, we can eliminate most of the risk. Of course, there are will always be people who are ultrasensitive to electromagnetic radiation (EMR). For them, the only solution may be complete abstinence—and we should all be considerate of their needs. For most, though, a balance between safety and utility can be found:

Keep in mind that distance is everything. EMR is an issue primarily when they’re very close. By keeping them at least an inch away from your body makes a huge difference. Use a headset or speakerphone. Do not store phones on your body. Keep them in bags that you carry, preferably within a box that assures at least an inch of separation between you and the phone.

If you have a child with autism, then you need to be extra vigilant. No mobile phones or other EMR devices should be in the same room where your child sleeps, and if it’s possible to rid your home of the devices, it’s probably good to do so. For more on the association of EMR and autism, read WiFi and EM Radiation—The Rest of the Autism Story.

Do not use a bluetooth headset! Bluetooth uses EMR, so it is literally worsening the problem. Always use a wired headset with your mobile phone. If you must use a bluetooth headset, then make sure it’s as well insulated as possible.
Note that different types of cells have different degrees of sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. Brain cells, though protected by the skull, are particularly sensitive. If you want to maintain your mental acuity, then be certain to keep mobile phones away from your head.

Fetuses are particularly sensitive. It’s critical to keep mobile device radiation away from a pregnant abdomen.
Do not ever keep mobile phones near the heart, that is, never store them in shirt pockets, because they can affect the heart. Remember that the heart operates on electrical pulses.

Do not ever use mobile phones as toys or learning tools for children. They are absolutely not necessary, and can even be considered a way of separating yourself from your children, which is certainly not a sign of being a good parent.
Do not let your children of any age use mobile phones. In the case of teens or preteens, that may not be doable, so at least assure that your children are aware of the risks and provided with the means to minimize them.

If reception is poor, your phone uses more energy to transmit, resulting in greater risk. So, avoid using them in poor reception areas.

Although mobile phones are rated for relative safety, note the fact that it’s relative, not absolute safety. None of them are safe, so don’t assume that a good rating makes you safe. It doesn’t.

Remember that laptops often utilize EMR technology and should never ever by used on their namesake laps. Both men and women need to be concerned. Aside from the potential of cancer, the potential for reduced fertility and birth defects is very real.

Best of all, reduce your use of mobile phones. The more you use them, the worse the effects.

A scientific paper was released this past week after much controversy. The findings of the paper, some feared, could be used to develop a highly contagious version of the Avian H5N1 (Bird Flu) virus. While those fears have largely been quelled, the researcher’s findings indicate that a pandemic of H5N1 is “just 3 mutations away.”

Currently, H5N1 can only be transmitted to humans from birds. It cannot pass from human to human like the cold virus or other influenza viruses. According to The Times of India, scientists say there are already some strains of the bird flu that are three mutations away from being passable by humans.

“With the information we have, it is impossible to say what the exact risk of the virus becoming airborne transmissible among humans,” said Professor Derek Smith, one of the study authors. “However, the results suggest that the remaining three mutations could evolve in a single human host, making a virus evolving in nature a potentially serious threat.”

In order for H5N1 to become highly transmissible in humans, five different mutations would have to be present. Two of those five already exist. The other three were created by scientists and studied in the ferrets. Ferrets were used because they transmit the same influenza viruses as humans.

Bird Flu Research Published Among Pandemic Fears

Scientists stress that the virus that was “airborne transmissible” did not cause death in the ferrets, easing some concerns among those who worried these findings could lead to intentional mutations being spread as a bioweapons. The virus did, however, kill those ferrets in which high doses were squirted directly into their nostrils.

The research findings have been under scrutiny for months as members of the scientific community debated on whether the information should be released.

“There is always a risk,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “But I believe the benefits are greater than the risks.”

According to the New York Times, statements made by the study’s lead author, Ron A. M. Fouchier spawned much of the controversy leading up to the release of the findings.

Fouchier reportedly raised alarm when giving interviews on the findings last fall. He said he had “done something really, really stupid,” and had “mutated the hell out of H5N1.” He went on to characterize the results as “very, very bad news,” saying they had created “probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.”

Since that time, his enthusiasm has died down and he blames the media for overblowing the danger. Whether the findings weren’t as “very, very bad” as he originally thought or if they are simply downplaying them as an afterthought remains to be seen.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

In the past, it was difficult to get an accurate measure of how stress had changed over time. This is because people 50 years ago simply didn’t measure stress levels; it wasn’t the concern that it is now. But because of the status quo, the need to make more money, gain more accolades, or simply pay the bills—stress has become harder to ignore.

Stress Levels Skyrocket Since 1983

In 1983, a telephone stress survey was conducted. Now, almost three decades later, we get to compare the results of that survey with current numbers to see how stress levels have changed through the years.

The results of the research are published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Carnegie Mellon University’s Sheldon Cohen and Denise Janicki-Deverts analyzed the data from the 1983 phone survey and compared it with online surveys from 2006 and 2009. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found that stress levels have gone through the roof.

Most people showed increased stress levels. But women, poor people and those with lower education levels reported more stress in each subsequent survey. The group that experienced the most stress related to the 2008-09 economic catastrophe were white, employed, middle-aged men with college degrees. Researchers surmise this could be because the group had the most to lose when the economy took a downturn.

According to USA Today, “stress increased 18% for women and 24% for men from 1983 to 2009.” They also found that stress tends to decrease as people age, with those in their 30s reporting lower stress levels than those in their 20s, and so forth. Nearly every demographic reported higher stress levels in the 2000s than in 1983, anywhere from 10 to 30% more.

This particular report has been called “more credible than most stress surveys because of its scientific methodology.” And I think most of us would agree that we are living in more stressful times now than 20 or 30 years ago. This is particularly concerning due to the fact that high stress levels have been linked to a 50% increased chance of premature death.

David Spiegel of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford University School of Medicine says, “Economic pressures are greater, and it’s harder to turn off information, and it’s harder to buffer ourselves from the world.”

He makes a good point. Not only do we, as modern adults, seem more preoccupied with getting more “stuff” and having more success, but we have a harder time escaping from the pressures of life. A vacation now isn’t what it was 30 years ago. We remain connected to our office, bill collectors, and everyone else with modern technology, and there really is only fleeting escapes from these constant demands. We are bombarded with reasons to stay stressed, if not from our own doings, than from mainstream media, making things like meditation, proper nutrition, and stress-blasting fitness all the more crucial.

Thankfully, there is information available you may use to understand how to de-stress.

Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.

Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.

The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.

This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position.

If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.

So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity, Monsanto has been putting money into research and development -- but not in the reputable sense of the phrase -- bypaying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.

The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:

Conflict of Interest StatementThe authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company. Final decisions regarding the content of the manuscript were made solely by the four authors.AcknowledgmentThis research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri

Even if no such a conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.

A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:

Funding Harm No Harm
Industry 0 13 (100%)
Independent (e.g. government) 152 (86%) 11 (14%)
Adding to the problem, the editorial boards of some of the journals within which the questionable science is printed are populated by paid consultants of the very industries they publish ostensibly impartial research on.

For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology withinwhich latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."

His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.

Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiatives emerge, their votes.

#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.
It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.

There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.

He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’.

In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.

Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.

‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.

‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.

Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition. ‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.

This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.’
He added: ‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’

The LCP was developed in the North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2004.

Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.

Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.

In the example of the 71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the man be removed from the LCP.

Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English, but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent seizures.

Professor Pullicino said: ‘I found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance.’
The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.
He said he needed extensive support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.

After 14 months the patient was admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours later.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal College of Physicians.

‘A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and, if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs.’

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Stress is a problem for many, likely most people in modern society. We’re constantly told that it’s a killer. Does that mean we should have a vaccine to stop it? That’s the goal of one scientist, and when the implications of such a vaccine are considered, it’s hard to believe that any tyrannical government would be able to resist it.

Robert Sapolsky is a neuroscientist at Stanford University in California. He started his career in the study of baboons, whose lives are controlled by a hideously restrictive hierarchy. While in Africa, he noted that the baboons at the bottom of the social order suffered great stress and lived shorter, less healthy lives.

Eventually, his research arena in Africa became polluted with too many people and all that entailed, including garbage dumps and pollution, which literally polluted his research. So, he took it up at Stanford, where he redirected his efforts into finding a way to ease stress in the belief that he’d be improving people’s health.

In a Wired article, Sapolsky states:

"You can give a guy a drug-coated stent, but if you don’t fix the stress problem, it won’t really matter. For so many conditions, stress is the major long-term risk factor. Everything else is a short-term fix."

So, rather than trying to find ways to alleviate stress, he and his team of researchers set out to find a way to stop the physical effects of stress. Glucosteroids are the hormones that create the stress response, so he focused on finding ways to circumvent them. Sapolsky and his team used genetic engineering to create a herpes virus that carries “neuroprotective” genes, but has the genes that are harmful to humans engineered out.

These so-called “neuroprotective” genes are designed to produce growth factors, antioxidants, and estrogen mimickers.

In other words, they’re planning to remake a major portion of the endocrine system and produce artificial antioxidants that have not been mediated through the digestive system, and add growth factors that can stimulate cellular growth and proliferation, which sounds suspiciously like cancer.

Implications of a Stress Vaccine

Anything that forcibly modifies the endocrine system is playing with fire. Our hormones are in a constant state of balance. When one is changed, it has a cascading effect on other hormones and body functions. There’s a reason for increased glucocortisoids in stress. Yes, it’s true that their function is to help the body respond to immediate danger, and these hormones are out of place in modern society. But what’s really wrong? Our bodies or society?

Social Implications

As Sapolsky has noted, the stress that people feel comes primarily from society’s inequalities and insecurities. The things that have brought us peace in prehistorical times—having a degree of surety that we won’t starve, that if we don’t eat today then we’ll eat tomorrow; having the support of our society when we’re in need; having adequate leisure time—are no longer routine for most of us.

Worse, we’ve created a society of severe inequality, which leads to insecurity for nearly everyone—and it’s getting worse. If we lose our jobs, will be lose our homes? Will be be able to feed our families? If we get sick, how will we pay for care? Will anyone care for us when we get old? Who’s watching the kids? Children past the toddler years spend more time with their parents than ever before, resulting in more stress for both. We don’t get enough sleep. We don’t get enough time off. And for most people, work isn’t satisfying.

The fact is that most of us are stressed most of the time. Some manage it better than others, but it’s a factor in our lives.

But why would we want to change our basic nature—to force ourselves into a kind of placidity in the face of all these pressures—instead of finding a way to change our society to make it better serve us?

According to The Daily Mail, a colleague of Sapolsky stated:

"In humans this engineered virus would short-circuit the neural feedback caused by stress, that lingering feeling of tension after a crisis has passed.

It would leave you fresher and ready to deal with another threat, so you can maintain your drive, but with more focused calm rather than bad temper and digestion.

This could change society."

No doubt it could change society—by creating a mass of people who aren’t really bothered by anything, people who are calm and content in the face of unacceptable treatment. People who would make excellent slaves in a society that exists primarily to support the wealth of a very few.

The Endocrine System

Then, there is the question of how the body would react to forced changes in how it deals with stress. We feel stress because it’s of value to us. It tells us that we need to do something to change our current circumstances. What better clue do we need to tell us that our society has gone mad?

Is Sapolsky’s colleague right that the vaccine would result in people feeling “fresher and ready to deal with another threat” or is it wishful thinking? It strikes me that he’s mixing his concepts. He’s referring to threats in the same manner that hunter-gatherers would, as things that come along and then pass. But he’s applying that concept in a world of constant stress. The problem isn’t merely lingering tension from individual incidents, it’s that the primary causes of stress are ongoing.

Even if the stress vaccine works as he’s described, it would have completely unanticipated results. The problem isn’t that our stress comes and goes; it’s that it builds and builds. It can’t go away because most of the inciting causes are constant.

What would happen? In this specific case, we don’t know—but we do know that any attempts to artificially change the hormone balance in the body has knock-on and often devastating effects:

Notice that the injected virus carries the ability to create artificial estrogens. We know that messing with the estrogen balance in the body is an exceptionally risky thing to do. It’s associated with breast cancer. Giving artificial estrogen to women in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) resulted in exactly the opposite of what was intended: HRT increases the very conditions it supposedly prevented, including cancer and heart disease.

The injected virus contains growth factors. Just what would be induced to greater growth? More cancer? Faster growing cancer? Faster cell death? We don’t really know.

We simply don’t know the full range of effects that a stress vaccine would induce. It would probably take years for all them to become apparent. And when they do, will we have become a society of zombies who’ve lost the ability to respond to new dangers after our hormones have been so modified that we’re beyond any hope of achieving health?

Inherent Vaccine Risks

Vaccines carry inherent risks. All of them include adjuvants, substances that create a stronger autoimmune response. These work by causing irritations that make the immune system respond more strongly to the injected vaccine material. They can also cause autoimmune disorders, both directly from toxicity and indirectly through antibodies to substances that are normally found in the body.

Many autoimmune diseases are associated with vaccines, including rheumatoid arthritis, and at least one new disease, macrofagic myofasciitis, is known to be directly caused by vaccines. The very idea that injected squalene, which is an oil produced by the liver, is safe is ludicrous on the surface. The act of injection turns it into an invader, to which an active immune system may respond by creating antibodies against it, thus creating an autoimmune disorder.

Aluminum and formaldehyde, common vaccine ingredients, are also highly toxic. And these are only some of the additives that pose serious danger.

Although the naysayers continue to state that autism isn’t caused by vaccines, the fact is that the studies purportedly proving it have been fatally flawed, and much good research does demonstrate a strong link. There is also the fact that, as new vaccines are added to the schedule, the rate of autism and associated neurological and gastrointestinal disorders rises.

Any suggestion that people should add yet another vaccine to an already intolerably large schedule takes us beyond madness.

A Zombie Effect?

Last, but certainly not least, is the potential of an anti-stress vaccine zombifying the populace. Stress is not, by definition, bad. Stress is nature’s way of telling us that we need to make changes.

The potential of an anti-stress vaccine to create a populace that can’t be aroused because the stress function has been destroyed is a terrifying specter.

If everybody is always stress-free, they’d always be mellow. They wouldn’t be particularly troubled by problems in their lives, so they wouldn’t be easily motivated to do anything about them. What tyrannical government wouldn’t want to make its citizens so malleable? What corporation wouldn’t want such complacent people to consume their products?

At its base, an anti-stress vaccine is an anti-human vaccine. It has the potential to turn the masses of people into virtual automatons, natural slaves to support an insatiable corporate appetite, lacking the ability to rebel against tyranny.

The Best Intentions …

To play with a Scottish phrase, the best intentions gang oft awry. As his photo shows, Sapolsky is an iconoclast. It’s too bad that his inclinations in that direction don’t extend to seeing either the full implications of his idea or to a recognition that one cannot force health onto people. The more we’ve use drugs and the more vaccines we’ve gotten, the worse our health has become. Chronic diseases are now the norm, rather than the rare exception.

Rather than trying to find ways to resolve the causes of chronic stress, he’s focused on a technical approach. At some point, the insanity needs to stop. If stress is a health problem, then it’s because we live in a society that creates abnormal stress. The only real fix is to resolve the cause, not the symptoms.

The question of what would become of people who’ve lost the ability to respond to stress is never addressed—and that may be the most disturbing question of all with regard to an anti-stress vaccine. Could such a vaccine lead to a society filled with people who’ve lost the spark that makes them strive to form a better world? Do we want to take the risk of finding out?

Sadly, Sapolsky seems to have swallowed the poison of science as a fix for everything. He appears to be well-intentioned and genuinely desirous of helping people. But that doesn’t make him right about an anti-stress vaccine.

In a riveting victory against genetically modified creations, a major biotech company known as Syngenta has been criminally charged for denying knowledge that its GM Bt corn actually kills livestock. What’s more is not only did the company deny this fact, but they did so in a civil court case that ended back in 2007. The charges were finally issued after a long legal struggle against the mega corp initiated by a German farmer named Gottfried Gloeckner whose dairy cattle died after eating the Bt toxin and coming down with a ‘mysterious’ illness.

Grown on his own farm from 1997 to 2002, the cows on the farm were all being fed exclusively on Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn by the year 2000. It was around this time that the mysterious illnesses began to emerge among the cattle population. Syngenta paid Gloeckner 40,000 euros in an effort to silence the farmer, however a civil lawsuit was brought upon the company. Amazingly, 2 cows ate genetically modified maize (now banned in Poland over serious concerns) and died. During the civil lawsuit, however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was responsible. In fact, they went as far as to claim having no knowledge whatsoever of harm.

The case was dismissed and Gloeckner, the farmer who launched the suit, was left thousands of euros in debt. And that’s not all; Gloeckner continued to lose many cows as a result of Syngenta’s modified Bt corn. After halting the use of GM feed in 2002, Gloeckner attempted a full investigation with the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta involved. The data of this investigation is still unavailable to the public, and only examined one cow. In 2009, however, the Gloeckner teamed up with a German action group known as Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and to ultimately bring Syngenta to the criminal court.

Using the testimony of another farmer whose cows died after eating Syngenta product, Gloeckner and the team have charged the biotech giant for the death of over 65 cows, withholding knowledge of the death-link, and holding the corporation liable for not registering the cattle deaths. The team is even charging Hans-Theo Jahmann, the German head of Syngenta , personally over the withholding of knowledge.

The charges bring to light just how far large biotechnology companies will go to conceal evidence linking their genetically modified products to serious harm. Monsanto, for example, has even threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont if they attempt to label its genetically modified ingredients. Why are they so afraid of the consumer knowing what they are putting in their mouths?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has drafted a recommendation that ALL Baby Boomers (people born between 1945 and 1965) be tested for the hepatitis C virus and subsequently vaccinated.

The CDC estimates 800,000 people are infected and being vaccinated could save 120,000 lives.

The Baby Boomers are being targeted because of the rampant drug use in the '80s with needles, as well as blood transfusions that were in great use during the '90s; before blood screening was common place.

The CDC says this “generational epidemic” will claim more Baby Boomers unless they are vaccinated.

“Two out of every three hepatitis C cases are in that generation,” said Ryan Clary, public policy director with Project Inform, the national HIV and hepatitis C advocacy organization based in San Francisco.

Bill Remak, chairman of the California Hepatitis C Task Force, is also supporting the targeting of the Baby Boomer generation for the next "silent epidemic" that can only be answered through mass vaccination.

Currently, there is no vaccine specifically designed to combat hepatitis C. The vaccine used is for hepatitis A and B. Through a combination vaccine, the CDC is using conjecture to justify massive amounts of people being vaccinated.

The ingredients and compounds used in vaccines make them more harmful than the virus they purport to safeguard us from.

Thimerosal, a mercury based preservative, is used in the majority of vaccines . Thimerosal has been linked to causing neurological problems such as attention deficit disorder (ADD), autism, and degenerative brain function issues.

A recent federal case showed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not only know about thimerosal, but endorse its use in vaccines.

Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CMFD), a coalition of citizens advocating for federal regulation of safer vaccines, filed the lawsuit against the FDA.

In court testimony, the FDA admitted its endorsement of thimerosal and approval for utilization in vaccines. Disregarding the American public’s health, the FDA chose to support vaccine manufacturers that use the preservative.

The propaganda the FDA promotes on their website concerning thimerosal states:
While the use of mercury-containing preservatives has declined in recent years with the development of new products formulated with alternative or no preservatives, thimerosal has been used in some immune globulin preparations, anti-venins, skin test antigens, and ophthalmic and nasal products, in addition to certain vaccines.

For most children, the reaction to the vaccine is more damaging than the risk of contracting the virus.

In 1996, 54 cases of the hepatitis B were reported to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in the 0-1 age group. Considering that there were 3.9 million births that year, the likelihood of Hepatitis B in that age group was 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccinations in the same year and age group. Forty-Seven deaths were officially attributed to the vaccine.

The manufacturers of the Hepatitis B vaccine are paid $1 billion a year for this vaccine which harms so many children. With that money, they can sway a lot of opinions, and they do.

A manufacturer of the vaccine was asked at a 1997 Illinois Board of Health hearing to cite his evidence that the vaccine is safe for a 1-day old infant. The representative replied: “We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds.”

The CDC’s claim that the Baby Boomers must suddenly subject themselves to a proven dangerous vaccine with unsafe effects is irresponsible. The only explanation is that the CDC, in collaboration with other forces, are purveying an agenda to conduct mass vaccinations of specific age groups.

This is coerced endangerment of the public by way of intended depopulation through the false declaration of a regulatory agency.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Medical texts described measles as a benign self-limiting childhood disease, nothing to worry about. But then the measles vaccine came out — thus creating the Great Measles Misunderstanding.

Before the advent of the measles vaccine, a dozen or so cases of measles would have been considered, well, too measly to make the headlines. That is because we all got the measles when we were kids. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers anyone born before 1957 to be immune to the measles.

“Before a vaccine was available, infection with measles virus was nearly universal during childhood with more than 90 percent of persons immune by age 15 years,” according to the CDC’s Pink Book.

We baby boomers were apparently the last generation whose doctors, and therefore parents, accepted the measles as just one more annoying rite of passage of childhood that also happened to prime the immune system and provide lifelong immunity.

Medical texts prior to the advent of the vaccine described measles as a benign, self-limiting childhood infectious disease that posed little risk to the average well-nourished child. All of that changed about 40 years ago when health authorities decreed the need to eradicate the measles, and so began The Great Measles Massacre.

The recent measles outbreak in Southern California provides an opportunity to review how effective the overall strategy of measles eradication has been so far.

First of all, measles-related deaths had already declined over 90 percent from the early 1900s by the time the measles vaccine came on the scene. The combination of steadily improving standards of living, better nutrition, antiseptic medical care and effective sanitation achieved this remarkable advance in public health in the “pre-vaccine” era.

One of the first measles vaccines tried out on a large scale was the inactivated or “killed” measles vaccine (KMV). The CDC’s Pink Book reports that “an estimated 600,000 to 900,000 persons” in the U.S. were injected with KMV from 1963 to 1967, before it was finally withdrawn.

The incredibly vague record of how many people received the shot is a bit unsettling, but what’s truly disturbing is how such a harmful and ineffective vaccine got approved and recommended in the first place. “KMV sensitized the recipient to measles virus antigens without providing protection,” the Pink Book tells us.

After exposure to natural measles, vast numbers of people vaccinated with KMV contracted atypical measles, an autoimmune disorder consisting of very high fevers, unusual rashes, pneumonia and pleural edema.

The really big campaign against measles began with the live virus vaccine, which arrived in 1971 as a component of the three-virus MMR shot (measles, mumps, rubella). The public was assured that this vaccine was different, it was safe and would provide lifetime immunity. Alas, these predictions proved a bit premature.

“An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent,” reported the American Journal of Public Health, April 1987.

“We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune,” according to the New England Journal of Medicine, March 1987.

By the mid-1990s, substantial vaccine failures prompted our health leaders to declare a booster MMR shot necessary for all. Once again, it was promised this would confer lifetime immunity. Since no actual lifetime data was available at the time, this prediction was presumably made using FDA-approved crystal ball technology.

Today, the number of reported measles cases is down considerably, and we are assured this means we have successfully massacred the measles. Unfortunately, such a one-dimensional analysis fails to tell the whole story. Not all is well with the MMR.

Before widespread vaccination against measles, young babies were not at risk of measles because they acquired immunity through the mother’s blood. Adults were not at risk because most of us gained lifelong immunity as a child. Both these groups are now susceptible to the measles and both have greater risk of severe disease and complications. This is described as an “unintended outcome” of measles vaccination.

And there is another unforeseen problem. “The vaccination-induced measles virus antibodies decline in the absence of natural booster infections. It is important to follow how long the protection achieved by the present vaccine program will last after elimination of indigenous measles,” reported the journal Vaccine, December 1998.

This raises the question: What will happen as we eventually succeed in replacing natural measles with vaccine measles? David Levy, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York created a computer model to answer that question: “Despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibles in the year 2050 may be greater than in the pre-vaccine era.” In other words, according to Levy’s prediction, we are in for higher rates of infection than we started with, spread throughout age groups at greater risk.

Currently, whenever there is an “outbreak” of measles (defined by the CDC as at least two infections from the same source), health officials leap into action. First and foremost, parents are told to drop everything and make sure their child gets a booster shot. Whether or not giving the booster actually helps is uncertain since few studies have ever examined the outcome of this practice.

One such investigation however, was carried out during a measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated secondary school population and reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 1996. The authors of the study concluded, “Administration of a second dose of vaccine during the outbreak was not protective.”

Is there anything that has been scientifically proven to protect the health of children infected with measles? The simple act of supplementing with vitamin A has repeatedly been shown effective in clinical trials all around the globe to reduce the severity of infection and slash measles death rates.

This suggests that our health leaders should be promoting vitamin A as a first line of defense to protect children in this country, since measles deaths in the United States have always been clustered in impoverished, malnourished populations.

Measles outbreaks predictably spawn newspaper editorials portraying parents who choose to not vaccinate their children as unwitting dupes of anti-vaccine zealots, with the inevitable call to end parents’ right to waive vaccination. The fact that vaccine-induced health disorders have been widely reported in the medical literature suggests that the writers of the editorials, not the parents, are the ones who have not done their homework.

British vaccine expert witness Jayne Donegan, M.D. is a parent who has spent years researching vaccines. She concludes, “I vaccinated both my children with the MMR jab, but this was before I started my research into the problems associated with it. Knowing what I know now, I would not vaccinate my children and run the risk of them getting diabetes, asthma, eczema, becoming more susceptible to meningitis and ending up chronically disabled.”

Which brings up what is likely the most dramatic advance emerging in health care today, the potential to restore the health of vaccine-damaged children using biomedical principles of nutrition and detoxification. You might think that the CDC would be blazing the trail to promote this approach that is helping so many children. Instead we hear the relentless drone of denial that such a path even exists.

By the way, if you’ve been waiting for the FDA to step in and re-investigate the enormous safety issues that have cropped up regarding the MMR and other vaccines, you’ll have to take a number and get in line. All three FDA employees in charge of food and drug safety are reportedly busy chasing down a small company found to be printing unproven health claims on their labels for food products made from cherries.

“The FDA will not tolerate unsubstantiated health claims that may mislead consumers,” said Margaret Glavin, associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. “The FDA will pursue necessary legal action to make sure companies and their executives manufacture and distribute safe, truthfully labeled products to consumers,” according to an FDA press release.

This impressive new declaration by the FDA that it will begin demanding truthful labeling is a breath of fresh air. It may help us move toward actual informed consent in medicine. And since we’re on the subject of measles, I propose the following new label for the MMR vaccine vial:

This product contains substances known by the United States Government to cause harm to human beings, including cancer, autoimmune diseases, nuero-developmental diseases and allergies. Genetically susceptible individuals injected with this vaccine are known to suffer enterocolitis, nerve system dysfunction and autism. Antibodies in the bloodstream provoked by the vaccine do not necessarily confer protection from natural measles. Paradoxically, in order for this vaccine to work at all, you must come in contact with natural measles virus from time to time. The maker of this product cannot be prosecuted for any disability or death caused by the vaccine to you or your babies, and good luck trying to sue the government instead.

At last count there were about seventeen jillion government and vaccine industry-funded journal articles claiming to disprove any possible link between vaccination and autism. With each new report, the medical community has harrumphed loudly that this one, finally, is the definitive study that will lay to rest forever any foolish questions of vaccine safety.

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, notes that no amount of reporting on cherry-picked data mined from old medical records does any good to erase our current epidemic of profoundly sick children.

Using pencils and calculators to dismiss causal associations between vaccines and chronic diseases is easier than having to look at real live patients or study what happens to their blood, urine, eyes, brain, colons, etc. after vaccination.

Has the time come to rename the whole measles eradication enterprise as The Great Measles Misunderstanding? The history of vaccination against measles is replete with tragic health-damaging errors, unanticipated negative outcomes, and a misplaced faith that mass vaccination is the unquestioned master plan.

The federal government has now conceded what thousands of parents have known for years, that vaccination can trigger a regression into autism in genetically susceptible children. This is a vital first step. Perhaps our health leaders will now begin asking the hard questions they have been avoiding for so long, beginning with how and why we wage war on childhood infectious disease.

Next time you read an editorial castigating parents for choosing to avoid vaccination, keep in mind that one day soon the same writer may instead be writing words of gratitude. Those who volunteer to skip the vaccine are benefiting us all by keeping the pool of circulating natural measles alive and well.

At his Senate confirmation hearing in the early months of 2009, the current White House science czar John P. Holdren stressed that he does not believe achieving “optimum population is the proper role of government.”

Countless of his statements and writings are testament to the fact that Holdren does indeed believe that government, at both the national and international level, should be the entity enforcing population policies. Regardless of the question if you agree or disagree with his statements on the “optimum” population size, the fact that he deceived the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee of the US Senate in regards to his beliefs, should prompt serious outrage, not to mention formal steps to be undertaken to remove John Holdren from his current position.

If one concurs, one could write to both the majority and minority members of this committee with this article attached, urging them to convince Congress to hold Mr. Holdren accountable for his words at the confirmation hearing on the basis of which he was appointed. You may also write your representative in Congress while the going is good.

At his confirmation hearing before the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee of the US Senate, Holdren (from 120 minutes, 30 seconds onward, transcript available here) answered several questions. One of them was posed by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in regards to John Holdren’s advocacy of an optimum population for the United States in his treatise Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency, written in 1973:

Senator Vitter: “In 1973 you encouraged a “decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” What would your number, or the right population in the US, be today?”

John P. Holdren: “I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973 I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States face appear to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time-period. (…).”

To illustrate that Holdren’s search for an optimum population is not some ancient preoccupation, is illustrated by a 2006 Powerpoint presentation in which Holdren states under the header “Population”:

“Lower is better for lots of reasons: 8 billion people in 2100 is preferable by far to 10 billion.”

So, we don’t have to go back as far as 1973, do we? Just a couple of years prior to his confirmation hearing in the senate, that Holdren was quite clear in his advocacy for lowering the number of people to reach an optimum population of 8 billion by 2100.

Again: irrespective of your position on this matter, the fact that Holdren told the Senate Committee that he no longer thinks “it’s productive (…) to focus on the optimum population of the United States” is in clear contrast to his own writings a few years prior to his confirmation hearing. Stating that “population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time-period.” is also deceptive, as Holdren has made clear on several occasions he considers population growth to be an absolute liability as opposed to a benefit.

And we don’t have to go by a single remark buried in some PowerPoint presentation. There are many more instances in which Holdren’s remarks before the Senate do not correspond to his stated position on the matter.

In 1995 John P. Holdren (with Paul Ehrlich) authored an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability:

“(…) what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects, cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of reducing the population at the global level. From page 36 onward:

“(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.”

On page 42, Holdren elaborates:

“In the long run, the world will not be able to have an effective energy strategy without also having an effective population strategy. Quite probably the best that can now be expected is that population growth might be halted at around 10 billion- an accomplishment that would require reducing the global-average total fertility rate to the replacement level by the year 2025. Achieving that much would be a tremendous challenge, requiring, in all likelihood, massive development assistance and other forms of international cooperation.”

There have been so many instances in which current White House chief science advisor John P. Holdren expressed, both directly and indirectly, such a thorough disdain for human life, combined with such a far-reaching willingness to deceive public officials in order to gain a position of power, that a formal hearing before the people’s representatives in Congress is warranted; indeed- long overdue.

One could fill a medium-sized library with the writings by this Malthusian monster, denouncing humans and their right to live under the sun. In 1972, John P. Holdren and his old buddy Paul Ehrlich wrote an article in “The Canadian Nurse”. The article is entitled “Abortion and Morality”. The subtitle reads as follows: “Has a potential human the right to live inside an actual woman without her consent?”

The article goes on to list the well-known arguments for abortion, such as “If abortion is needed by individuals and by society, is medically safe, and is not patently immoral, it is difficult to be sure exactly what is accomplished in subjecting the procedure to restrictive government scrutiny”, Holdren and Ehrich say.

“Infants”, the two continue, “are entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the (US) Constitution, but fetuses are not. Because of this distinction, the relaxation of abortion laws could scarcely imperil the rights of infants or of elderly and otherwise dependent people. (…) Repeal of abortion laws is long overdue.”

These were not some isolated comment by two overzealous eco-fascists. In the 1973 publication Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote quite candidly about their basic view on life, providing us with yet another peek at the decaying undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged- proposing among other things a “planetary regime” to assume command of matters of life and death.

In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:

“The fetus“, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early yearsafter birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

In other words, Holdren not only argues, as he did in 1972, that the unborn may not be considered human- he believes that children during the early years after birth, cannot yet be considered human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science adviser, it may not come as a surprise that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be deemed as completely at the government’s mercy.

In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):

“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”

The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases have an opportunity to thrive and reek havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:

“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”

Another proposal reads as follows:

“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).

From Ehrlich we again switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) the article “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:

“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”

“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”

The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:

“Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”

In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are coming after you and your children.